http://w.noisefromamerika.org/c/14136/106059/feed
itHONG KONG, siamo sicuri? http://w.noisefromamerika.org/articolo/mio-nonno-fava-mattoni#comment-106059
<p>Su Italia vs Ocse ho avuto modo di dire in altro commento, come sugli Stati Uniti. Non conoscevo la situazione di Hong Kong, ma, a scavare un poco, ho qualche dubbio possa essere l'esempio che voi ne fate. Quello che indicate come "land premium" viene - come indicato peraltro nella tabella 4 del vostro link - dalla vendita e re-lease ai developer di land di proprietà governativa, è non ricorrente ed estremamente volatile di anno in anno, </p>
<p>"It is important to note that land premium, as capital revenue, is very volatile. Figure 2 shows land premium as a percent of total government revenue from 1980-81 to 2013-14. Land premium can be as high as 34.1% of government revenue in 1980-81 and as low as 2.6% in 2003-04 when it was as little as $5.415 billion.4 The fluctuation in the percentage share of land premium is very substantial. The percent was as high as 22.2% in 1997-98 when the property market peaked. It fell to a bottom of 2.6% in 2003-04, the year of SARS. In dollar terms, the land premium fell from $62.48 billion in 1997-98 to a dismal amount of $5.42 billion in 2003-04, a drop of 91%. The percentage share of land premium rose to 17.4% in 2007-08, the year before the onset of the global financial crisis, which brought the percentage to a low of 5.3% in the following year. In one year, the land premium fell from $62.32 billion to $16.94 billion, a drop of 73%".<br />
(<a href="http://www.igef.cuhk.edu.hk/igef_media/working-paper/IGEF/igef%20working%20paper%20no.%2019%20english%20version.pdf" title="http://www.igef.cuhk.edu.hk/igef_media/working-paper/IGEF/igef%20working%20paper%20no.%2019%20english%20version.pdf">http://www.igef.cuhk.edu.hk/igef_media/working-paper/IGEF/igef%20working...</a>) </p>
<p>Più che una fonte stabile di ricavi (per i vari livelli possibili di governo), sembra una tassa altamente incerta sulla speculazione edilizia. Anzi, nemmeno una tassa, ma in parte proprio la vendita di asset. Chiaro che se includiamo alienazione di terreni pubblici in varia forma allora stiamo comparando pere e mele. Guardando, invece, al tax summary di PWC su Hong Kong, beh, loro scrivono la seguente cosa, </p>
<p>"Property taxes<br />
Property tax is charged to the owner of any land or buildings (except government and consular properties) in Hong Kong at the standard rate of 15% on the net assessable value of such land or buildings. Net assessable value of a property is the consideration payable to the owner for the right to use the land or buildings less rates paid by the owner and a 20% notional allowance. Property occupied by the owner for self-use is not subject to property tax as no rent is receivable with respect to that property".<br />
(<a href="http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/uk/taxsummaries/wwts.nsf/ID/Hong-Kong-Individual-Other-taxes" title="http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/uk/taxsummaries/wwts.nsf/ID/Hong-Kong-Individual-Other-taxes">http://taxsummaries.pwc.com/uk/taxsummaries/wwts.nsf/ID/Hong-Kong-Indivi...</a>) </p>
<p>Dunque, se guardiamo al gettito ricorrente/operativo e non per natura one-off, i ricavi da property sono 2.5 bln di property tax per sé (solo da immobili locati) e circa 13 bln di government rate, ovvero 4.4% of tax revenue.</p>
Thu, 29 Oct 2015 20:38:50 +0000marcoparigicomment 106059 at http://w.noisefromamerika.org